Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
Income Tax : Central Government has decided to extend the time limits to 30th June, 2021 in the following cases where the time limit was earlie...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was legally sound and unaffected by arguments based on 153C or Notification 18/2022. Still, it directed a full rehearing because the appellate authority issued non-speaking orders without examining the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were invalid, stressing only FAOs can issue such notices under the faceless assessment scheme.
Detailed seized agreement and subsequent sale deed considered strong corroboration. Addition under Section 69A sustained in search-based reassessment.
ITAT held that AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred since the 10-year window must be computed from the date of recorded satisfaction. The ruling reaffirms that out-of-range years cannot be assessed under 153C.
The Tribunal accepted that the 7.5% rebate was a pre-negotiated commercial discount and not an unaccounted cash return. As the seized loose sheets were unverified and unsupported by witnesses, the ₹9.06 crore addition failed.
Madras High Court held that the provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act will not apply in case of initiation of search initiated on or after 01.04.2021. Accordingly, notices issued u/s. 153C are liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that the seized notes clearly connected the assessee to both the loan and property investment, validating jurisdiction under Section 153C. The assessee’s failure to submit any proof led to confirmation of the additions. The case highlights the importance of evidence-based rebuttal in search-related assessments.
The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third-party excel sheet, without any direct evidence of cash payment, was unsustainable. With a complete RTGS trail, registered deed, and vendor confirmation proving bank-only payment, the ITAT ordered deletion of the Section 69 addition.
The issue involved a common sanction letter covering multiple assessees and years, issued on the same day the AO sought approval. ITAT found this composite approval inconsistent with judicial mandates requiring individualized scrutiny. As a result, the assessment was declared void ab initio, making all additions infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 jurisdiction is barred under Explanation 1(c) if the matter is under appeal before CIT(A). AO’s assessment, including enquiry into statements and ledgers, was found proper. PCIT’s revision attempting to tax full Rs.1.59 Cr as bogus purchase was quashed.
